Muslims just love to interfere in Non Muslim affairs

Malaysiakini :  Non-Muslim constitutional experts should be appointed to the committee reviewing the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court as per the Federal Constitution, said DAP lawmaker Ngeh Khoo Ham.

“I notice that all members of the committee are Muslims.

“It is important to also appoint non-Muslim constitutional experts into the committee so that non-Muslim views with regard to the provisions in the Federal Constitution will also be taken into account before proposals for changes in our law is made,” he said in a statement.

Furthermore, Ngeh (above) said a representative from the Malaysian Bar must also sit on the committee as this is a statutory body formed to ensure the laws passed in our country are fair and just.

Proarte : DAP in government has been so pusillanimous such that I think it was important for Ngeh to make the suggestion for non-Muslim involvement in the committee because Syariah court rulings have been impacting on Non-Muslims in a very callous and patently unfair manner.

As a result of Syariah court decisions, the family lives of non-Muslims Indra Ghandhi, Low Siew Hong and their children have been turned on its head and made miserable. Furthermore, to add to the misery, Syariah courts have misguidedly allowed for the unilateral conversion of the children by the father who was a recent convert to Islam without the knowledge or consent of the Hindu or Buddhist mother.

The Syariah courts have been remiss by not checking or worse still ignoring the marriage status of a non-Muslim who wants to convert to Islam. If he or she remains legally married and therefore officially a non-Muslim, then they must be directed to dissolve their Civil marriage first and sort out custody issues in the Civil Court before they can officially be recognised as a Muslim.

The Syariah committee should welcome the input of non-Muslims in order to iron out the travesty of justice which non-Muslim families have been facing. If there is objection to non-Muslim experts getting involved in the Syariah Committee, then they must ensure that Syariah Court rulings are consistent with the Constitution which clearly states that Syariah Courts do not have any jurisdiction over non-Muslims.

Dr Suresh Kumar : No on one in their right mind would want to interfere in Islamic issues. This is to make sure Islamic laws do not interfere in non-Muslim rights mate.

apanama is back : Malaysia ranks among the top countries worldwide in the degree of state regulation of religion. Malaysia ranks sixth out of 198 countries worldwide in the degree of restrictions on the free practice of religion, surpassing even Saudi Arabia (Pew Research Center 2017). In another measure, the government involvement in Religion Index, only ten countries worldwide have a higher ranking than Malaysia.

Malaysian law requires Muslims to attend Friday prayer, to fast during Ramadan, and to abide by dietary restrictions all year long. Drinking, gambling, and “sexual deviance” are prohibited, as is interfaith marriage and conversion out of Islam. But over and above these rules and regulations, it is the state’s monopoly on religious interpretation that is the most striking feature of Malaysian law.

Once recorded in the official Gazette, fatwas from state-appointed officials assume the force of law and public expression of alternate views is criminalized. From this vantage point, Malaysia appears as a religious state, at least for the 60% of Malaysian Muslims who are subject to these laws.

From this vantage point, Malaysia appears to be the antithesis of a secular state and the realization of a religious state, at least for the sixty percent of Malaysian Muslims who are subject to such rules and regulations. Aspects of religion and governance are clearly intertwined in Malaysia, but the Malaysian case illustrates how the simple dichotomy of “secular” versus “religious” can obfuscate more than it reveals.

As recent work shows the secular/religious binary takes its own starting point for granted and overlooks the ways that both categories are constructed as mirror opposites along with the expanding regulatory capacity of the modern state. In addition to this binding monopoly on the interpretation of Islamic law, the Malaysian government built a significant infrastructure for delivering its state-sanctioned understanding of Islam.

Witness that fifty-six deviant sects (including Shia Islam) have been outlawed. In the Federal Territories, the Administration of Islamic Law Act also establishes a monopoly on the administration of mosques, including the trusteeship and maintenance of all existing mosques (Articles 72 and 74), the erection of new mosques (Article 73), and the appointment and discipline of local imams (Articles 76–83).

More than this, federal and state agencies dictate the content of Friday sermons (khutab). Imams, already on the government payroll and licensed by the state, are also monitored and disciplined if they veer too far from state-proscribed mandates. Combined with the extensive reach of the state in other areas, such as public education, television and radio programming, and quasi-independent institutions such as IKIM (Institute for Islamic Understanding), the state plays a prominent role in shaping popular understandings of Islam.

With such reach of Islamic law in this country over the decades there is a need to have a non-Muslim representative in the committee. We cannot let single race to monopolise it. It will get worse than what I had commented above. Now itself it is too bad enough. Person like Ngeh, who is a law graduate, is aware of what I had mentioned here and he should not keep quiet. He need to defend our secularism. However, I am disappointed with Loke and Sim.